Practice Algorithm of Rotational Thromboelastometry-Guided (ROTEM-Guided) Bleeding Management in Liver Transplantation.

Liver transplantation (LT) is frequently complicated by coagulopathy associated with end-stage liver disease, which is often multifactorial and associated with hemostatic disturbances affecting both the procoagulant and anticoagulant systems. This rebalanced coagulation system may lead to bleeding diathesis or increased clot formation. Conventional coagulation tests cannot reflect these complex changes because they can only illustrate deficiencies in the procoagulant system. Viscoelastic tests such as rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) have been used in LT and have shown useful for detecting coagulopathy and guiding transfusions. Implementation of ROTEM-guided bleeding management algorithms has proven effectiveness in reducing bleeding, transfusion needs, complication rates, and healthcare costs in LT. This document is intended to provide a practice algorithm for the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy during LT and to encourage adaptation of the guidelines to individual institutional circumstances and resources.

A Narrative Review of Remimazolam in Procedural Sedation.

Remimazolam is a recently approved benzodiazepine for procedural sedation in Taiwan. It is a new type of short-acting γ-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist with the characteristics of non-organ-dependent metabolism, no injection pain, and inactive metabolites. Remimazolam has a mild cardiopulmonary suppressive effect, showing good effectiveness and safety in clinical applications, especially in the elderly, critically ill patients, or patients with hepatic and renal insufficiency. This review aims to provide an overview of the specific basic and clinical pharmacology of remimazolam and provide scientific support for the clinical application of this novel sedative drug in procedural sedation.

Injection Site Reactions Before and After Intramuscular Injection Technique Revision: A Postmarketing Analysis of NALDEBAIN® From 2017 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: The NALDEBAIN® has been available since 2017, and high incidence of injection reactions in the phase 3 study has been reported. Since the first year in the market, the injection site reactions were still the majority of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in pharmacovigilance reports. The new intramuscular (IM) instruction and package was introduced in the middle of 2018. In this retrospective study, we analyzed the pharmacovigilance data and published postmarketing studies to investigate the impact of IM injection-related reactions in Taiwan between the period of 2017-2022. METHODS: Individual case safety reports (ICSRs) and ADRs were classified by system organ class and preferred term. The reporting rate of ICSRs was used to evaluate the impact of the new IM instruction and package. RESULTS: A total of 37 ICSRs were identified from pharmacovigilance reports. Among them, 51% of IM injection-related reactions were reported after one single dose of NALDEBAIN administration. The reporting rate of IM injection-related reactions in pharmacovigilance data dropped from 125.00 to 3.56 per ten thousand exposures after IM instruction and package revision in 2018. In addition, the percentage of IM injection-related reactions also reduced in postmarketing studies from 27.5% to 4.5%. There were no serious IM injection-related reactions found in the pharmacovigilance and postmarketing dataset. CONCLUSION: Injection site reactions were common after intramuscularly administered oil-based agents during the first year which is later markedly reduced by changing the length of the needle and injection education.

Multimodal Analgesia With Extended-Release Dinalbuphine Sebacate for Perioperative Management: Expert Opinion and Consensus.

BACKGROUND: The insufficient treatment of postoperative pain is considered a major barrier to enhanced patient recovery following surgery. Opioids remain the standard therapy for postoperative pain; however, the epidemic crisis of opioid abuse in the US has resulted in opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia (MMA) strategies in anesthesia practice. Complete perioperative pain management, particularly after discharge, may be undermined, resulting in chronic postsurgical pain. Thus, anesthesiologists and pain physicians should provide comprehensive MMA guidance for perioperative pain management. METHODS: The Taiwan Pain Society organized a working group, which included experts in the field of anesthesia, pain, and surgery. This group performed an extensive literature search, quality review, and drafted a consensus, which was discussed by experts and edited for feedback. Recommendations covered consent instruction, treatment interventions, intramuscular injection techniques, and prophylaxis for postoperative adverse events. RESULTS: This consensus included (1) a comparison of the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics between nalbuphine and dinalbuphine sebacate, (2) recommendations to help clinicians establish MMA with extended-release dinalbuphine sebacate injection, and (3) management of common adverse events during the perioperative pain period. CONCLUSION: Extended-release dinalbuphine sebacate combined with the MMA strategy can reduce the medical burden and improve the quality of recovery following surgery.

Multimodal Analgesia with Extended-Release Dinalbuphine Sebacate for Perioperative Pain Management in Upper Extremity Trauma Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing upper extremity fracture surgery (UEFS) commonly suffer from unbearable acute pain. Opioids remain the mainstay of moderate to severe pain alleviation, although there is a growing concern regarding the increasing trend in misuse and abuse. This study aimed to observe the safety and efficacy of dinalbuphine sebacate (DS), a novel extended-release analgesic, along with multimodal analgesia (MMA) for post-UEFS pain control. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients undergoing UEFS between August 2020 and January 2021. Eligible patients were included and divided into two groups, depending on the analgesic regimen. In the DS group, 150 mg DS was administered intramuscularly at least 12 h pre-operatively, while in the conventional analgesia (CA) group, 40 mg parecoxib was given within 3 h before surgery. Intraoperative fentanyl administration was guided by the Analgesia Nociception Index System in both groups. For breakthrough pain, fentanyl was used as rescue medicine in the postanaesthesia care unit while tramadol and parecoxib were administered in the ward. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were allocated to the DS group and 60 patients were allocated to the CA group. In comparison with the CA group, the proportion of patients requiring opioids for breakthrough pain post-operatively was significantly lower in the DS group (fentanyl: 31% vs. 68%, p < 0.001; tramadol: 27% vs. 70%, p < 0.001). The DS group also consumed lower amounts of post-operative rescue opioids. Furthermore, both mean worst and least pain scores were significantly lower in the DS group from post-operative day (POD) 1 to POD 5. There was no significant difference in intraoperative consumption of fentanyl or incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: This result suggests that extended-release DS is a suitable analgesic incorporated in MMA and a promising solution to the misuse and abuse of opioids.

Comparison of Anesthesia-Controlled Operating Room Time Between Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Desflurane Anesthesia in Open Liver Resection: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Reducing anesthesia-controlled time (ACT) such as extubation time may improve operation room (OR) efficiency result from different anesthetic techniques. However, the information about the difference in ACT between desflurane (DES) anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) techniques for open liver resection under general anesthesia is not available in the literature. METHODS: This retrospective study uses our hospital database to analyze the ACT of open liver resection after either DES/fentanyl-based anesthesia or TIVA via target-controlled infusion (TCI) with fentanyl/propofol from January 2010 to December 2011. The various time intervals including waiting for anesthesia time, anesthesia time, surgical time, extubation time, exit from OR after extubation, total OR time, and post-anesthetic care unit stay time and percentage of prolonged extubation (≥ 15 minutes) were compared between the two anesthetic techniques. RESULTS: We included 143 hepatocellular carcinoma patients, with 82 patients receiving TIVA and 61 patients receiving DES. The extubation time was faster (10.1 ± 3.2 min vs. 11.8 ± 5.2 min; P = 0.03), and the incidence of prolonged extubation was lower (9.8% vs. 26.8%; P = 0.02) in the DES group than in the TIVA group. The factors contributed to prolonged extubation were age, sex, anesthetic technique, and anesthesia time. CONCLUSION: The DES anesthesia provided faster extubation time and lower incidence of prolonged extubation compared with propofol-based TIVA by TCI in elective open liver resection. Besides, older age, male, TIVA, and lengthy anesthesia time were factors affecting prolonged extubation.

Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia improves survival compared to desflurane anesthesia in gastric cancer surgery: A retrospective analysis.

Surgical management of cancer may induce stress and increase the likelihood of cancer metastasis and recurrence. Appropriate surgical and anesthetic techniques may affect the patient's outcome. Although numerous studies have been performed, conflicting results have been obtained regarding the effect of anesthetic techniques on the outcome of patients with cancer. We conducted this study to evaluate the association of anesthetic techniques with overall and recurrence-free survival in patients who had undergone gastric cancer surgery.This retrospective study reviewed the electronic medical records of patients, who had visited our hospital and had been diagnosed with gastric cancer between July 1st, 2006 to June 30th, 2016. Univariate analysis of the potential prognostic factors was performed using the log-rank test for categorical factors, and parameters with a P-value < .05 at the univariate step were included in the multivariate regression analysis. Propensity Score Matching was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics: propofol or desflurane, in a 1:1 ratio.A total of 408 patients anesthetized with desflurane (218) and propofol (190) were eligible for analysis. After propensity matching, 167 patients remained in each group. The overall mortality rate was significantly higher in the desflurane group (56%) than in the propofol group (34%) during follow-up (P < .001). In addition, a greater percentage of patients in the desflurane group (41%) exhibited postoperative metastasis than those in the propofol group (19%, P < .001).The authors found some association between types of anesthesia used and the long-term prognosis of gastric cancer. Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia improved survival and reduced the risk of recurrence and metastasis during the 5-year follow-up period after gastric cancer surgery.

Propofol vs desflurane on the cytokine, matrix metalloproteinase-9, and heme oxygenase-1 response during living donor liver transplantation: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the effects of propofol vs desflurane on ischemia and reperfusion injury (IRI)-induced inflammatory responses, especially in matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) downregulation and heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) upregulation, which may result in different clinical outcomes in liver transplant recipients. METHODS: Fifty liver transplant recipients were randomized to receive propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA group, n = 25) or desflurane anesthesia (DES group, n = 25). We then measured the following: perioperative serum cytokine concentrations (interleukin 1 receptor antagonist [IL-1RA], IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10); MMP-9 and HO-1 mRNA expression levels at predefined intervals. Further, postoperative outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The TIVA group showed a significant HO-1 level increase following the anhepatic phase and a significant MMP-9 reduction after reperfusion, in addition to a significant increase in IL-10 levels after the anhepatic phase and IL-1RA levels after reperfusion. Compared to DES patients, TIVA patients showed a faster return of the international normalized ratio to normal values, lower plasma alanine aminotransferase concentrations 24 hours after transplantation, and fewer patients developing acute lung injury. Moreover, compared with DES patients, TIVA patients showed a significant reduction in serum blood lactate levels. However, there were no differences in postoperative outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Propofol-based TIVA attenuated inflammatory response (elevated IL-1RA and IL-10 levels), downregulated MMP-9 response, and increased HO-1 expression with improved recovery of graft function and better microcirculation compared with desflurane anesthesia in liver transplant recipients.

Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia did not improve survival compared to desflurane anesthesia in breast cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and several perioperative factors may account for tumor recurrence and metastasis. The anesthetic agents employed during cancer surgery might play a crucial role in cancer cell survival and patient outcomes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to investigate the relationship between the type of anesthesia and overall survival in patients who underwent breast cancer surgery performed by one experienced surgeon. METHODS: All patients who underwent breast cancer surgery by an experienced surgeon between January 2006 and December 2010 were included in this study. Patients were separated into two groups according to the use of desflurane or propofol anesthesia during surgery. Locoregional recurrence and overall survival rates were assessed for the two groups (desflurane or propofol anesthesia). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models and propensity score matching analyses were used to compare the hazard ratios for death and adjust for potential confounders (age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, TNM stage, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, Charlson Comorbidity Index, anesthesiologists, and functional status). RESULTS: Of the 976 breast cancer patients, 632 patients underwent breast cancer surgery with desflurane anesthesia, while 344 received propofol anesthesia. After propensity scoring, 592 patients remained in the desflurane group and 296 patients in the propofol group. The mortality rate was similar in the desflurane (38 deaths, 4%) and propofol (22 deaths, 4%; p = 0.812) groups in 5-year follow-up. The crude hazard ratio (HR) for all patients was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.92, p = 0.646). No significant difference in the locoregional recurrence or overall 5-year survival rates were found after breast surgery using desflurane or propofol anesthesia (p = 0.454). Propensity score-matched analyses demonstrated similar outcomes in both groups. Patients who received propofol anesthesia had a higher mortality rate than those who received desflurane anesthesia in the matched groups (7% vs 6%, respectively) without significant difference (p = 0.561). In the propensity score-matched analyses, univariable analysis showed an insignificant finding (HR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.72-2.11, p = 0.449). After adjustment for the time since the earliest included patient, the HR remained insignificant (HR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.70-2.16, p = 0.475). CONCLUSION: In our non-randomized retrospective analysis, neither propofol nor desflurane anesthesia for breast cancer surgery by an experienced surgeon can affect patient prognosis and survival. The influence of propofol anesthesia on breast cancer outcome requires further investigation.

Effects of intraoperative propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia on postoperative pain in spine surgery: Comparison with desflurane anesthesia - a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: As reported, patients experience less postoperative pain after propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). In the present study, we investigated the postoperative analgesic effects between propofol-based TIVA and desflurane anesthesia after spine surgery. METHODS: Sixty patients were included who received (surgical time >180 minutes) lumbar spine surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either TIVA (with target-controlled infusion) with propofol/fentanyl-based anesthesia (TIVA group) or desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia (DES group), titrated to maintain Bispectral Index values between 45 and 55. All patients received patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with fentanyl for postoperative pain relief. Numeric pain rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative fentanyl consumption, postoperative rescue tramadol use, and fentanyl-related side effects were recorded. RESULTS: The TIVA group patients reported lower NRS pain scores during coughing on postoperative day 1 but not day 2 and 3 (P = .002, P = .133, P = .161, respectively). Less fentanyl consumption was observed on postoperative days 1 and 2, but not on day 3 (375 µg vs 485 µg, P = .032, 414 µg vs 572 µg, P = .033, and 421 µg vs 479 µg, P = .209, respectively), less cumulative fentanyl consumption at postoperative 48 hours (790 µg vs 1057 µg, P = .004) and 72 hours (1210 µg vs 1536 µg, P = .004), and total fentanyl consumption (1393 µg vs 1704 µg, P = .007) when compared with the DES group. No difference was found in rescue tramadol use and fentanyl-related side effects. CONCLUSION: Patients anesthetized with propofol-based TIVA reported less pain during coughing and consumed less daily and total PCA fentanyl after lumbar spine surgery.

Baicalein attenuates neuropathic pain and improves sciatic nerve function recovery in rats with partial sciatic nerve transection.

BACKGROUND: Modulating the inflammatory response to nerve injury may provide therapeutic opportunities by aborting the neurobiological alterations that support the development of persistent pain. Baicalein, a 12-lipoxygenase inhibitor, has anti-inflammation properties. It also demonstrates anti-inflammatory functions by inhibiting lipopolysaccharide-induced barrier disruption, expression of cell adhesion molecules, and adhesion and migration of leukocytes. The aim of the present study was to assess the possibility of early treatment of neuropathic pain via the systemic injection of baicalein in rats with left partial sciatic nerve transection (PST). METHODS: Wistar rats were divided into Sham, Vehicle, and Baicalein groups. The Vehicle and Baicalein rats underwent PST, whereas the Sham rats were not transected. Baicalein was administered 20 mg/kg/day intraperitoneally for 7 days after PST and after behaviour tests. After PST, rats developed mechanical and cold allodynia, and impaired sciatic nerve function. RESULTS: Baicalein attenuated mechanical and cold allodynia and improved sciatic nerve function after PST. Baicalein significantly inhibited the expression of tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and IL-1ß on days 14 and 28, and attenuated the activation of astrocytes in the L4-5 spinal cord less than day 28 after PST. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that early and multiple doses of systemic baicalein attenuated neuropathic pain and improved sciatic nerve function by inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokine expression and attenuating the activation of astrocytes in the spinal cord.

Propofol-based Total Intravenous Anesthesia Is Associated with Better Survival Than Desflurane Anesthesia in Colon Cancer Surgery.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: Previous research has shown different effects of anesthetics on cancer cell growth. Here, the authors investigated the association between type of anesthetic and patient survival after elective colon cancer surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included patients who received elective colon cancer surgery between January 2005 and December 2014. Patients were grouped according to anesthesia received: propofol or desflurane. After exclusion of those who received combined propofol anesthesia with inhalation anesthesia or epidural anesthesia, survival curves were constructed from the date of surgery to death. After propensity matching, univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumor-node-metastasis staging and postoperative metastasis. RESULTS: A total of 706 patients (307 deaths, 43.5%) with desflurane anesthesia and 657 (88 deaths, 13.4%) with propofol anesthesia were eligible for analysis. After propensity matching, 579 patients remained in each group (189 deaths, 32.6%, in the desflurane group vs. 87, 15.0%, in the propofol group). In the matched analyses, the propofol-treated group had a better survival, irrespective of lower tumor-node-metastasis stage (hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.42; P < 0.001) or higher tumor-node-metastasis stage (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.55; P < 0.001) and presence of metastases (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.86; P = 0.002) or absence of metastases (hazard ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.62; P = 0.016). Simple propensity score adjustment produced similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol anesthesia for colon cancer surgery is associated with better survival irrespective of tumor-node-metastasis stage.

Analysis of anesthesia-controlled operating room time after propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia compared with desflurane anesthesia in functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

Anesthesia technique may contribute to the improvement of operation room (OR) efficiency by reducing anesthesia-controlled time. We compared the difference between propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and desflurane anesthesia (DES) for functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) undergoing general anesthesiaWe performed a retrospective study using data collected in our hospital to compare the anesthesia-controlled time of FESS using either TIVA via target-controlled infusion with propofol/fentanyl or DES/fentanyl-based anesthesia between January 2010 and December 2011. The various time intervals (surgical time, anesthesia time, extubation time, total OR stay time, post anesthesia care unit [PACU] stay time) and the percentage of prolonged extubation were compared between the 2 anesthetic techniques.We included data from 717 patients, with 305 patients receiving TIVA and 412 patients receiving DES. An emergence time >15 minutes is defined as prolonged extubation. The extubation time was faster (8.8 [3.5] vs. 9.6 [4.0] minutes; P = .03), and the percentage of prolonged extubation was lower (7.5% vs. 13.6%, risk difference 6.1%, P < .001) in the TIVA group than in the DES group. However, there was no significant difference between ACT, total OR stay time, and PACU stay time.In our hospital, propofol-based TIVA by target-controlled infusion provide faster emergence and lower chance of prolonged extubation compared with DES anesthesia in FESS. However, the reduction in extubation time may not improve OR efficiency.

Efficacy of sevoflurane as an adjuvant to propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia for attenuating secretions in ocular surgery.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of nasal secretions into the operative field is as high as 5% in ophthalmic surgery under general anesthesia. It may induce postoperative endophthalmitis. Secretions under propofol-based total intravanous anesthesia (TIVA) are greater than sevoflurane anesthesia during surgery. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after inhalational anesthesia is higher than TIVA and may increase intraocluar pressure. We investigated the effect of sevoflurane combination with propofol-based TIVA on nasopharyngeal secretions and PONV in ocular surgery. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing ocular operations were randomly assigned for propofol-based TIVA or propofol/sevoflurane anesthesia. In the TIVA group (n = 25), anesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol and fentanyl; in the propofol/sevoflurane group (n = 25), 1% sevoflurane anesthesia was added. RESULTS: Nasopharyngeal excretion volume was significantly higher in the propofol-based TIVA group than in the propofol/sevoflurane group (31.0 ±â€Š18.1 vs 13.7 ±â€Š12.6 ml; P < .001). No significant difference in extubation time was noted (propofol-based TIVA: 6.4 ±â€Š3.6 vs propofol/sevoflurane: 7.4 ±â€Š3.0 minutes; P = .34). No postoperative endophthalmitis or PONV in both groups was observed. CONCLUSION: Sevoflurane attenuated secretions under propofol-based TIVA and did not increase the incidence of PONV or prolonged extubation in ocular surgery.

Planning for operating room efficiency and faster anesthesia wake-up time in open major upper abdominal surgery.

Reducing anesthesia-controlled time (ACT) may improve operation room (OR) efficiency result from different anesthetic techniques. However, the information about the difference in ACT between desflurane (DES) anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) techniques for open major upper abdominal surgery under general anesthesia (GA) is not available in the literature.This retrospective study uses our hospital database to analyze the ACT of open major upper abdominal surgery without liver resection after either desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia or TIVA via target-controlled infusion with fentanyl/propofol from January 2010 to December 2011. The various time intervals including waiting for anesthesia time, anesthesia time, surgical time, extubation time, exit from OR after extubation, total OR time, and postanesthetic care unit (PACU) stay time and percentage of prolonged extubation (≥15 minutes) were compared between these 2 anesthetic techniques.We included data from 343 patients, with 159 patients receiving TIVA and 184 patients receiving DES. The only significant difference is extubation time, TIVA was faster than the DES group (8.5 ±â€Š3.8 vs 9.4 ±â€Š3.7 minutes; P = 0.04). The factors contributed to prolonged extubation were age, gender, body mass index, DES anesthesia, and anesthesia time.In our hospital, propofol-based TIVA by target-controlled infusion provides faster emergence compared with DES anesthesia; however, it did not improve OR efficiency in open major abdominal surgery. Older, male gender, higher body mass index, DES anesthesia, and lengthy anesthesia time were factors that contribute to extubation time.

Comparison of Anesthesia-Controlled Operating Room Time between Propofol-Based Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Desflurane Anesthesia in Open Colorectal Surgery: A Retrospective Study.

We conducted a retrospective study to investigate the anesthesia-controlled time and factors that contribute to prolonged extubation in open colorectal surgery. Using our hospital database, demographic data, various time intervals (waiting for anesthesia time, anesthesia time, surgical time, emergence time, exit from operating room after extubation, total operating room time, and post-anesthesia care unit stay time), and incidence of prolonged extubation (≥ 15 mins), were compared between patients who received desflurane/fentanyl-based anesthesia and total intravenous anesthesia via target-controlled infusion with fentanyl/propofol. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association between variables that contributed to prolonged extubation. In conclusion, the anesthesia-controlled time was similar in desflurane anesthesia and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia for open colorectal surgery in our hospital. Surgical time greater than 210 minutes, as well as age, contributed to prolonged extubation.

Removal of Laryngeal Mask Airway in Adults Under Target-Controlled, Propofol-Fentanyl Infusion Anesthesia: Awake or Deep Anesthesia?

After emergence from anesthesia, the incidence and severity of adverse airway effects caused by the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) can vary, depending on when the device was removed; nonetheless, reports differ regarding the exact optimal timing of LMA removal. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of adverse events between 2 groups: those whose LMA was removed under general anesthesia ("deep" group) or under target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol ("awake" group).Institutional Review Board approval and written informed consent were obtained; 124 patients were then randomly allocated into either the "awake" group or the "deep" group. Anesthesia was induced and maintained using TCI of propofol, as well as intravenous fentanyl. In the "deep" group, the LMA was removed after surgery while the patients were deeply anesthetized using a target effect-site propofol concentration of 2 µg/mL, whereas in the "awake" group, the device was removed while the patients followed verbal instructions. The incidence of the following adverse events was recorded: coughing, straining, bronchospasm, laryngospasm, clenching, breath holding, gross purposeful movement, airway obstruction, retching, vomiting, and oxygen desaturation. If any such event occurred, the LMA removal was considered a failure. Airway hyperreactivity was recorded and graded - based on the severity of cough, breath holding, and oxygen desaturation.The failure rate was higher in the "awake" group (15/61; 24.6%) than in the "deep" group (5/60; 8.3%). Airway hyperreactivity was mild (score, <3) in both groups.Removal of the LMA under deep anesthesia using a target-controlled, effect-site propofol concentration of 2 µg/mL may be safer and more successful than removal when patients are fully awake after surgery.

Faster extubation time with more stable hemodynamics during extubation and shorter total surgical suite time after propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia compared with desflurane anesthesia in lengthy lumbar spine surgery.

OBJECT Anesthesia techniques can contribute to the reduction of anesthesia-controlled time and may therefore improve operating room efficiency. However, little is known about the difference in anesthesia-controlled time between propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and desflurane (DES) anesthesia techniques for prolonged lumbar spine surgery under general anesthesia. METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted using hospital databases to compare the anesthesia-controlled time of lengthy (surgical time > 180 minutes) lumbar spine surgery in patients receiving either TIVA via target-controlled infusion (TCI) with propofol/fentanyl or DES/fentanyl-based anesthesia, between January 2009 and December 2011. A variety of time intervals (surgical time, anesthesia time, extubation time, time in the operating room, postanesthesia care unit [PACU] length of stay, and total surgical suite time) comprising perioperative hemodynamic variables were compared between the 2 anesthesia techniques. RESULTS Data from 581 patients were included in the analysis; 307 patients received TIVA and 274 received DES anesthesia. The extubation time was faster (12.4 ± 5.3 vs 7.0 ± 4.5 minutes, p < 0.001), and the time in operating room and total surgical suite time was shorter in the TIVA group than in the DES group (326.5 ± 57.2 vs 338.4 ± 69.4 minutes, p = 0.025; and 402.6 ± 60.2 vs 414.4 ± 71.7 minutes, p = 0.033, respectively). However, there was no statistically significant difference in PACU length of stay between the groups. Heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure were more stable during extubation in the TIVA group than in the DES group. CONCLUSIONS Utilization of TIVA reduced the mean time to extubation and total surgical suite time by 5.4 minutes and 11.8 minutes, respectively, and produced more stable hemodynamics during extubation compared with the use of DES anesthesia in lengthy lumbar spine surgery.